2015 post UK election discussion

[Tree13]

Are you really suggesting Tories base when they have kids on their financial situation and everyone else doesn't?

What a load of twaddle.

The counter argument is that in your mind you are ready for the next step of life's big adventure.

Not a reason to embark on that next step with wanton disregard for the responsibilities that come with it, or a sense of entitlement that demands the state picks up the bill for the adventure.

I am suggesting that many Tory voters are likely to bear welfare spending proposals in mind when casting their vote. The result of the election doesn't DISPROVE that theory, does it?

 

[Tree13]

Have we talked about why Labour lost yet?

There are a few clues in the thread, IMHO.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Many corporate solicitor roles now are actually sales positions, if you look at them from a certain perspective. Male company directors, when buying in legal services, like to buy in hot, attractive young female solicitors. There is an overabundance of them in certain areas of law (mainly the commercial areas) but obviously those factors are far less relevant in other areas, such as criminal defence.

If you look at the gender breakdown amongst NQ and early PQE solicitors, there are significant differences in certain sectors. They (the females) are every bit as capable and qualified, but invariably are preferred in the corporate positions because of the PERCEPTION that they will be more likely to attract more clients.

The sexism in this post, and indeed this thread, is appalling.

Can you find me one credible source which suggests that "hot, attractive young female solicitors" are keeping male solicitors out of commercial/corporate law?

I work in commercial law and can tell you from first-hand experience that it is a competitive industry which demands a number of skills, good academics and willingness to work long hours. Most trainees are there to provide assistance to senior solicitors on drafting, negotiating, etc, not eye-candy like you suggest.

Could it be that the trends in the rise of female solictors have anything to do with the fact that female/male law students are a 60/40 split? Could it have anything to do with the fact that female law students are outperforming their male counterparts academically on average? No of course not, they're women, they must be there for the men to look at, rather than on their own merit.

You are driving an agenda here which is insulting and wholly untrue. Contrary to what you say, if there is any gender inequality in the legal profession, it is against women, who are only paid 68% of what men are paid on average - over £50k per year difference on average.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Seem to have lost the nasty streak. There aren't enough horrible ruthless bastards behind the scenes and the party has become a bit rudderless because of it.

True this, every party needs a few of them when it comes to fighting and winning elections in this country. Alastair Campbell, Mandleston, et al, were very influential and haven't been replaced with anyone of the same ruthlessness.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Have we talked about why Labour lost yet?

It's davek's fault, too busy looking for anti-Martinez plotters and didn't spend enough time canvassing support for Labour.
ffs dave.

 

[daylightrobber]

Not a reason to embark on that next step with wanton disregard for the responsibilities that come with it, or a sense of entitlement that demands the state picks up the bill for the adventure.

I am suggesting that many Tory voters are likely to bear welfare spending proposals in mind when casting their vote. The result of the election doesn't DISPROVE that theory, does it?

The state is going to pick up a bit a few bills though isn't it? I presume you'll be happy to take maternity and NHS care etc.

I'm sure many Tories benefitted nicely from the state and now don't want others to do the same.

 

[tim cahill]

Right, this seems to be where we differ - I can't understand why, after doing the maths, people don't wait at least a couple of years. Any scrap of savings and slightly increased earning power is better than none at all.

Waiting and trying to save is prudent and might reduce the risk of falling on hard times later. It might also serve to slightly help alleviate the strain on the public purse, and the demands placed on the state school system - even if only temporarily. I'm not setting an arbitrary figure, or demanding a set period of time: I'm just advocating a basic semblance of planning and budgeting.

The counter-argument appears to consist of "I'm impatient. Someone else can pick up the bill." I can see why over 11 million people don't really care for that counter-argument.

But a lot of people won't be better off after a few years of waiting. If someone is anywhere near minimum wage how much do you think they can save in a year after the cost of living comes out of it? How long would it take to save for a deposit for a house, then to furnish a house, then to buy all of the stuff they need for a baby, then to save enough to keep them going through the first few years of having the baby? They'd be in their 60's before they could start 'trying'.

 

[roydo]

The state is going to pick up a bit a few bills though isn't it? I presume you'll be happy to take maternity and NHS care etc.

I'm sure many Tories benefitted nicely from the state and now don't want others to do the same.

Mate, with respect, that is nonsense.

I was astonished when I found out that me and Mrs R could get some welfare payments, help with poll tax as it happens, but I would guess there would be others as well. Didnt feel comfortable taking them, cos I just didnt think I should take from a limited pot of cash when we didnt really need to, and I am well aware of folk locally who do need a helping hand. Packed in smoking instead.

Now that is not a clarion call for everyone on benefits to find a bike etc etc, just an example of why your point is nonsense.

 

[SNova]

You are driving an agenda here which is insulting and wholly untrue. Contrary to what you say, if there is any gender inequality in the legal profession, it is against women, who are only paid 68% of what men are paid on average - over £50k per year difference on average.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

How long before the Tories click on to the fact that some folk will be receiving tax credits etc but have equity in their home ?

Once they realise that then they'll be getting folk to sign over the said equity to them and then inflating the housing market again before telling them that they either have to buy back the equity or sell up with them receiving anything over what was initially paid for the house. The fact that there'll be nowhere for them to move to due to the nations housing stock having been sold off and not replaced will be of absolutely no consequence to them.
In fact I find it hard to fathom that the likes of Gideon, IDS & their ilk haven't thought of this already.

 

[roydo]

How long before the Tories click on to the fact that some folk will be receiving tax credits etc but have equity in their home ?

Once they realise that then they'll be getting folk to sign over the said equity to them and then inflating the housing market again before telling them that they either have to buy back the equity or sell up with them receiving anything over what was initially paid for the house. The fact that there'll be nowhere for them to move to due to the nations housing stock having been sold off and not replaced will be of absolutely no consequence to them.
In fact I find it hard to fathom that the likes of Gideon, IDS & their ilk haven't thought of this already.

I doubt very much that Tories would look at anything that seems like an attack on home ownership.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

I doubt very much that Tories would look at anything that seems like an attack on home ownership.

They're into this shared ownership thing though, they'll be setting up Private Companies with their mates to bulk buy all the other %'s of ownership at reduced rates and then charging rent for living in a property that they own x amount of.

"So Sir, you are living in a home that we own 66% of so as the market rate to rent that property is £500 per month then you must pay us £333.33p per month rent, what's that ? your boilers broken, well sorry but that's down to you mate, WE haven't been the ones firing it up for hot water and heating now have we."

 

[bring the ghost on]

Nik, I have no idea why you keep linking me to American generic sources when I'm discussing specific issues relating to Britain.

Regarding inequality in solicitors gender pay gap, have a read of these and see if you can be swayed... The arguments presented in that random American video are wholly irrelevant here.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practic...ice-gender-pay-gap-widens/5040421.fullarticle

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/p...ds-gender-pay-gap-widens-in-private-practice/

 

[roydo]

They're into this shared ownership thing though, they'll be setting up Private Companies with their mates to bulk buy all the other %'s of ownership at reduced rates and then charging rent for living in a property that they own x amount of.

"So Sir, you are living in a home that we own 66% of so as the market rate to rent that property is £500 per month then you must pay us £333.33p per month rent, what's that ? your boilers broken, well sorry but that's down to you mate, WE haven't been the ones firing it up for hot water and heating now have we."

Shared ownership is miles away from taking equity out of folks homes though mate.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Shared ownership is miles away from taking equity out of folks homes though mate.

Not when they make themselves shared owners by taking your equity it isnt.